John Campbell’s interview last night with “Moon Man” and self-proclaimed earthquake predictor Ken Ring was, according to the unprecedented stream of Twitter messages following it, a “train wreck”, “harsh”, “disappointing” and “poor journalism”.

John, your mindless, bullying, tirade against ‘moon man’ Ken Ring on tonight’s Campbell Live was perhaps the worst piece of egotistical, self-important, out of control, closed-minded, biased, unprofessional non-interviewing I have seen in more than 40 years of New Zealand television.

With respect to Dr Edwards, I think he is over-reacting. What John Campbell engaged in was on a par with a mild episode of BBC Hardtalk as fronted by attack dog intellectual Stephen Sackur – though without the finesse or, it has to be said, the intellectualism. In a sense, the interview with Ken Ring was a train wreck, but at least Ring wasn’t permitted to air his banal theories in a softball interview, the trap a journalist at the Gisborne Herald fell into:

The Gisborne Herald has been the only media outlet to ask him about his success highlighting the likely dates of quakes, he said.

’Nobody has interviewed me at all. The way I see it the geologists have got it all wrong – they say these earthquakes are not occurring on any known faults, but earthquakes create faultlines as they go.

Not that the Gisborne Herald felt the need to consult a geologist, an astrophysicist or a scientist of any persuasion in this single-source story.

It is this type of easy media exposure which Ken Ring is adept at manipulating to his own end. Let us not forget that Ken Ring publishes a long-running and presumably lucrative series of weather prediction almanacs – his website is currently pushing the version for Ireland.

Giving Ring airtime in the media has turned out to be a very bad idea – people are taking his theories seriously and in the wake of last week’s quake, many are considering leaving Christchurch in the days around March 20, when Ring next predicts a quake will occur. The Campbell Live interviews preceding the exchange with Ring showed how intelligent, hard-working and obviously fearful Cantabrians have bought into Ring’s scientifically unfounded predictions.

Given all of that, its not surprising that Campbell was angry, that he was unwilling to give Ring a free run as so many before him have done. Campbell succeeded in shutting Ring down and tore into his theory as he should have done. But so unfocused was the attack that the average viewer never even got to hear a summary of Ring’s theory before Campbell attempted to demolish it. The overall impression for those who had only vaguely heard of Ken Ring then was that of a poor old man sitting alone in a TV studio being shouted at by a flustered and clearly angry John Campbell. Tragically, people are flocking to Ring’s defence as a result.

The irony is that Campbell could have simply asked Ring four or five simple questions and stood back as Ring shot himself in the foot attempting to answer them with his wacky pseudoscientific explanations. That’s all that would have been required for the average Campbell Live viewer to write Ring off as a crackpot and move on.

The set-up of the interview didn’t help, with Campbell on location in Christchurch and Ring stuck up on his own in the Auckland studio. At least TV3 didn’t put Ring head to head live on national TV with GNS Science seismologist Dr Kelvin Berryman – that would have been unfair, inappropriate and have made for bad TV.

I yesterday spent much of the day at the Science Media Centre trying with limited success to persuade journalists not to give Ken Ring any more airtime. Unfortunately last night’s episode of Campbell Live has resulted in a lot of people lending moral support to a guy who is preying on the fear of vulnerable quake victims. I don’t think that’s what John Campbell set out to achieve but it was a side-effect of the shotgun approach he took when he needed the incisiveness of a surgeon’s scalpel.

For an analysis of Ken Ring’s earthquake predictions check out this piece by fellow Sciblogger David Winter

“Is the â€™scientific methodâ€™ that I hear so much about, so closed to alternative theories, so as to refuse to investigate them further?”

The scientific method tends to only consider theories for which there is evidence, and theories which are testable. Ken Rings vague opinions/predictions provide neither.

And, like Alison I have come across people who are frightened by Ken Ring’s “opinion” that in March there will be another earthquake. And despite the fact that he subsequently claimed this opinion as quoted in the media is not correct, (see Alisons post at http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2011/03/01/predicting-earthquakes-hedging-your-bets/) he doesn’t seem to have indicated this in the media. So what we have are people scared by a “prediction” he doesn’t want to own, and has made no effort to correct.
I look forward to a second interview provided that whoever interviews him is well prepared.

â€œWhy is there such a real and obvious fear of Ken gaining traction, and a blatant agenda to shut him down? Does it come from the scientific community, or from those who fund it?â€

Iâ€™ve read objections from people that donâ€™t seem to be scientists – Iâ€™m sure you have too, thereâ€™s lots of them! Perhaps itâ€™s better to ask your openly-endedly so these people can be included too?

One answer might be that they are concerned at the harm (stress, unnecessary hassle, etc.) his â€œpredictionsâ€ might cause.

For a GNS scientist to claim Kenâ€™s theories were debunked 100 or so years ago, appears to be clear evidence of how blinkered the science has become.

This is certainly what some people have have written second-hand, but this is not quite what Dr Berryman said!

Put simply, it’s not that it was considered 100 years ago then an off switch thrown.

Rather, he said that it was first examined (and found to be flawed) 100 years agoâ€”his reference to â€˜classicallyâ€™, he then goes on to talk about more recent work relating to both small earthquakes and, separately, larger events after he referred to the â€˜classicalâ€™ work. (I can understand people getting this wrong, however.)

You might want to read the link I’m passing on to Alister below. In it some of the geologists make similar points.

On a general note, there are a number of things that were fairly well-established some time ago, which while they have been refined since, the basics of what was found all the time ago still stands and are basically correct. Evolution is probably the best known to most people, but there are other examples, including some that go back even further in time.

What people have written here shows a lack of understanding of science, really. Science constantly revises. Itâ€™s (very) rare for things to be entirely â€œoverlookedâ€ in the way this implies, older material is usually brought forward in with newer work in the way that Dr Berryman referred to.

Alister,

Just stick to putting the scientific view forward â€“ for that youâ€™d get my support.

For example from that page Dr Mark Quigley wrote â€œI will always be willing to engage in scientific discussion and debate if it appears in an open and honest format. In the midst of a crisis, however, I feel quite strongly that the time is not yet right.â€

petersmith 1614 days ago

PG said, “well just because we donâ€™t have the full picture, is it right for some guy to pretend he does? Iâ€™d rather have a little bit of knowledge than a load of crap!”

So what are you advocating? Censorship? Gadaffi style? Shoot anyone who has a contraire view?????

Michael Edmonds 1614 days ago

@petersmith

“So what are you advocating? Censorship? Gadaffi style? Shoot anyone who has a contraire view?????”

I fail to see how you draw that conclusion from what Peter Griffin said. Indeed he was asking a question, followed by a statement of what he himself would prefer.
The use of hysterical hyperbole here adds no value in my opinion.

Hysterical??? Hyperbole???? I don’t think so… it was Campbell who was hysterical… and the rabid ‘scientists’ who have been hysterical… so much so they would crucify someone who has a contraire view to theirs…

Michael Edmonds 1614 days ago

@petersmith

so you are saying that the following is not hysterical hyperbole?

â€œSo what are you advocating? Censorship? Gadaffi style? Shoot anyone who has a contraire view?????â€

I agree with you that John Campbell was bordering on hysterical, but perhaps you could point out examples of “rapid scientists” I seem to have missed them?

allyoop 1614 days ago

Attention Michael Edmonds – re your reply to @allyoop

Are you are a scientist Michael?

It is patently clear what I wrote but it seems I need to spell it out.

But maybe you have difficulty with language and you have no understanding of the extensive research that has been undertaken in field of what constitutes â€˜sustainable communityâ€™?
Or was it the comments on global economics that got you confused?

Gee even most children today can understand what ‘sustainable community’ means – it is an optimum size (approx 5 to 10,000 people capacity) – and clearly such communities today can employ the latest renewable energies and other technologies etc with no need for massive super expensive infrastructure e.g. composting toilet /sewage systems requiring no external piping to huge costly sewage systems that break in times of earthquakes etc.
(refer http://www.affka.com/compost_toilet.htm )

It is worth noting here that aging infrastructure in big cities is one of the least talked about and least understood HUGE PROBLEMS for the so-called rich developed world in as much as the aging infrastructure is now reaching end of life and has a huge milestone around our necks – hobbling our economies and draining our finances as people like you maintain the immutability of ‘big city’ development (or have I misread your sentiments poorly expressed?)

Well that was just the tip of the iceberg. There were actually over 40 such ageing gas pipeline ruptures but luckily the rest did not sustain the same death toll. This is another huge future cost for US that they are going to struggle to pay for given their massive debt (public debt now expanding at rate of US$10 billion every day in 2011 â€“ to put that in context, the US dollar today is worth less than a quarter was worth in 1971. The federal government spent $15 billion from 1789-1900. Not $15 billion a year. $15 billion cumulatively. Uncle Sam will spend $10 billion per day in 2011. The federal government spends more every two days than it did altogether for more than America’s first century (albeit that is not adjusted for inflation). Read more on subject at following web link from Ralph Benko, who is a member of the bar of the State of New York, is Senior Advisor, Economics, of the American Principles Project, and who was called by the United States Department of the Treasury to testify before the US Gold Commission on the constitutional history of American monetary policy.
He is also an Advisor for The Gold Standard Now and an important contributor to the Gold Standard 2012 project

Michael, I suspect you think that Christchurch should simply be rebuilt with modern glass buildings (as is current penchant in our cities) on the same ground in CBD – Business as Usual?
Good luck to you and the poor souls of Christchurch in that event.

Have you ever wondered why (excepting a few big skyscrapers in central LA) across that vast city of LA you seldom see high rise buildings? – Duh – do I have to spell it out for you.

Have you ever read anything at all on this subject of â€˜sustainable communitiesâ€™ or ‘Transition Towns’? Or are you totally preoccupied in some abstruse science that has little if any relevance to our everyday living? Here is a link to Transition Towns New Zealand â€“

Also I advise that you do some real research into the real state of the global economy, and NZ economy, and then compare it with the mainstream nonsense being propagated in our mass media by the Keynesian savant quants who write reports to government order. Google and listen / watch / read those economists worth their salt who get their income from pay subscribers and corporations who rely on their advice for their investment strategies â€“ these are the economists and analysts who have been calling it as it is and who predicted all the big problems well before there eventuating i.e. people like Dr Marc Faber, Gerald Celente of Trends Research in US and Jim Rogers billionaire and one time partner of George Soros in the quantum fund (to name but a few).

As for how the true state of economy in US particularly (and elsewhere â€“ given that the dynamics are the same in most developed countries like NZ ) If you care to do your research you might discover how the financial masters who privately own Federal Reserve hijacked the US economy in 1913 and since then have established the world’s central banking system (along with the fictitious economic theories that underpin it) who all answer to the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) curiously another privately owned and very secretive organization. You might also care to read about William White one-time economist at the BIS in this revealing article in Spiegel ‘The Man Nobody Wanted to Hear’

Same dynamic applies in NZ and most other countries.
This buying of expert opinion and research is now endemic in most so-called scientific sectors.

For example, I have been, till recently, working in the energy sector in industry and I can tell you from first-hand experience that New Zealand CRIs have, in the main, done nothing but produce report after expensive tax-payer-funded report that in most cases concludes they need to do another report. I even heard a PhD scientist from Scion in 2007 state that they saw no future for biomass energy in NZ because they predict diesel price (get this) being NZ$0.87 in 2020 (that is 87 cents per liter in 2020) and that was presented at the Residues to Revenues conference in Rotorua 2007 at a time when diesel had spiked to over NZ$1. No kidding. And this was from the organization, heavily tax-payer funded, which is tasked with researching and analyzing best path forward for New Zealand timber and biomass industries. After sometime (one inside scientist even admitted this to me personally) it became very clear that these organizations know that in order for them to get more funding (on which they spend as much time as they do on pursuing any quality research) they have to configure their determinations according to the outcome of what Government of the day is wanting – in this specific case it was clearly to reinforce the hegemony and total monopoly control of the Government-owned electricity generator / retailers (as the skewed and totally non-free market model was originally set-up to maintain) and which is why today we have had approx 100% increase in power prices (remember prior restructuring we were told without doubt that it would result in reduced / contained power prices and greater efficiencies?) – and all this in spite of the fact that on a per capita basis New Zealand has more biomass resource than anywhere else in the world. Also worth noting here is that biomass is the most overlooked and most cost-effective and abundant renewable energy resource on the planet today. And NZ SOE’s have spent, and continue to spend truckloads of money (a great portion of which is state subsidies by way of obtaining AAUâ€™s) on wind farms which are intermittent and the second most expensive renewable energy per kW next only to PV. To add insult to injury, during the last dry year when the electricity crisis hit in 2007 when spot market price on Feb 4, 2007 went through the stratosphere and the so-called free wholesale market had to be closed for a time, the big wind farms were only able to output approx 8% of their rated capacity â€“ a huge cost for little return.
Get the picture a little bit Michael??? Or is that too hard for you?

â€˜The cost of environmental damage due to production and use of fossil fuel energy and certain chemicals and materials leads us to the inevitable conclusion that new systems of production must be developed. These should focus on reduction of pollution or hazardous materials, producing safe and environmentally benign products in a green and sustainable supply chain. For this to occur, a constant and renewable supply that has a low carbon cost is required. Globally, the only source of such renewable feedstock is biomass.â€™

Michael, if you detect some paranoia in my writing can you please explain your analysis?
All I see is accusation without substance â€“ very scientific indeed.
I am always open to constructive criticism and diagnosis.
You however might prefer to keep your head stuck firm in the sand

If I am paranoid, I have reason to be when I run into sensibilities that make commenst like your own.

Einstein once stated:
\Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.\

possum 1614 days ago

@allyoop>All I see is accusation without substance â€“ very scientific indeed.

And you quote the Huffington site as evidence. Oh the irony!

allyoop 1614 days ago

gee Possum

is it in the headlights?

Is there someone out there who can make sensible comment?

Inform me as to the UNSCIENTIFIC credentials of Huffington Post

AOL just purchased Huffington for US$315 million 0 surely that provides you mainstreamers people with some comfort. Or is AOL part of some nutcase cosnspiracy too.

Possum you have not even read the article on Hufffington becasue of you had you might have, before shooting unthinking from the hip. noticed the references to named Wall Street analysts as well as the comment from the highly regarded University of Texas economics professor – and Fed critic – James Galbraith. amongst other comments. This is real journalistic presenting of the other sides point of view also.
It is a very well balanced and informative (if not scary) piece of journalism – read it and then post some contrary evidence from equally bone fide source.

Firstly, given itâ€™s Ken Ringâ€™s claim, itâ€™s really his to demonstrate, not for others to disprove

Secondly, despite this others have in fact worked on this, including one of our science bloggers. The article above links to this at the end (see sentence in bold at the end). For your benefit, here is the link:

The Huffington Post may be a good source of politics, economics, general interests pieces, etc. (I wouldn’t really know as I don’t read much of politics, gossip, etc.) But regardless of this it has a long history of pseudo-science articles and is widely regarded as a laughing stock in the science communication community because of them.

Alison Campbell 1614 days ago

Allyoop – much of your rather lengthy posting seems to be at a tangent to what the rest of us here were discussing; the world economic system was not what we were focussing on.

Also, you complain that others have failed to read your links, but it appears that this is a mutual failing as you seem to have ignored thee links we’ve provided to just the sort of analysis of Ken Ring’s claims that you’ve asked for.

petersmith 1614 days ago

Grant said, “But regardless of this it has a long history of pseudo-science articles and is widely regarded as a laughing stock in the science communication community because of them.”

Grant, you are sooooooo ‘the man!’ You believe 6 years constitutes a ‘long history????’

Alison Campbell 1614 days ago

Petersmith – well, 6 years is all the history the Huffpo has, so I guess since its science coverage has been universally poor in that time, then one could call it a long history :-)
But more seriously, the Huffpo is a bastion of anti-vaccination pseudoscience, it’s published material that uncritically accepts things like homeopathy, it’s promoted the completely unscientific nonsense that is ‘The Secret’… I could add to the list but suffice it to say that I think Grant’s comment is a fair one.

I understand where you are coming from in debunking Ken’s theories from a scientific perspective, and I think that is probably a useful technique amongst yourselves. However most of the objections centre around the lack of credible scientific evidence supporting his theories and his failure to ‘prove’ them to the rigorous standards you adhere to.

Unfortunately (for the scientists), the average person, although no less intelligent, has a lower requirement around the burden of proof than you do. This is their right, and as you have pointed out, the media have greater influence in the determinations of the public on these matters.

The average person simply doesn’t have the time nor inclination to make make efficient scientific determinations in every facet of their life, so they use many factors in deciding what to believe. Plausibility is a key factor, and as discussed earlier, Ken’s theories have a nice ring to them. It seems entirely logical to me, that in times of fear and uncertainty (clearly caused by the earthquakes themselves, not by Mr Ring), people will flock towards someone who they perceive to have potentially useful and perhaps uncomfortably believable information.

This is all natural human behaviour, and to try to control and change it by dictating the information flow is as bad if not worse, by your own standards, as what Kedoing accused of doing. There still appears to be no sound reason why Ken should be silenced, and attempts to do so will rightly be seen as censorship and an insult to our intelligence.

Many a proven genius was once discredited as a charlatan and a crackpot (both grossly disrespectful terms might I add), and I suspect if Ken is able to continue to show, what the public to believe to be even moderate success & correlations in his theories, you will have a problem on your hands.

Is jt possible, that if public sentiment continues to grow around Ken’s theories, that you may end up with a different brief around where to focus your attention?

Science tells us there is no way to predict earthquakes. This other guy is saying that perhaps there is and maybe science should take a look at it. The public think that sounds reasonable, but you guys say he’s a crackpot. Putting Ken’s theories into a condescending series of complex looking third form algebra equations isn’t exactly going to win over the masses. Maybe better PR is in order. Or perhaps have some respect and chuck some serious modern day research at the idea, I bet in the current climate, such research would be financially supported.

Anyway, thank you for your patience, I have found this debate interesting, not to mention a steep learning curve.

MainlyMe 1614 days ago

@MarkJ
That is a very eloquent, and in my own experience, totally realistic description of the different worlds inhabited by the scientist and the lay public, that I weakly described as a “rift” in an earlier posting.

I think it is critical that scientists hear how it looks “from the other side”, and ultimately for science communicators to develop the skill to both visualise the mass populace viewpoint and to ultimately leverage that to bridge the comprehension gulf. Only by that accomplishment will there be fertile ground for science to make the social contribution that it must make have if we are to continue to flourish as a species. For science may occur in the laboratory, but it is implemented in society. (Aside – I have long admired Paul Callaghan for his inate ability to bridge such gaps.)

I thank you greatly for presenting the lay-world situation with crystal clarity, and I hope that it has provided a new perspective for the scientists to frame their future interactions with “the real world”.

And if I could add one last observation of my own for the science community watching this debate. It is my view that Ken Ring honestly and genuinely believes that he has a key to forecast (word chosen advisedly rather than predict) periods of high risk for earthquakes, and by exposing those to public scrutiny is performing his own form of peer review. If that impression is right, then there is no deception (which requires intent) in his philosophy, and he is entitled to the dignity of a proper hearing accompanied by a rebuttal of clinical fact-founded logic wrapped in lay-comprehensible terms. The truth will out for the intelligent majority. There is far greater chance to win public support with that approach than will ever be accomplished by manipulating media and closing down discussion.

The absolute freedom of the Third Estate is a critical pillar of democratic society, or at least of the one that I want to live in.

Many a proven genius was once discredited as a charlatan and a crackpot (both grossly disrespectful terms might I add), [â€¦]

The more correct statement would be that there is a stereotype that â€œMany a proven genius was once discredited as a charlatanâ€¦ [etc]â€. In practice, itâ€™s rare.

Part of the issue is that the vast majority of science is not by â€œleapsâ€ but by increment. The â€œleapsâ€ thing is oversold by the mainstream media and popular thrillers, etc.

I do generally agree that a straight-forward science debunking won’t work for many people in the public (it will work for some, though), but a few points youâ€™ve said arenâ€™t quite right in my opinion. I touched on some of these in my earlier reply to you.

MainlyMe 1614 days ago

Appears I cannot go back and edit an error in my post. When I said “If that impression is right, then there is no deception (which requires intent) in his philosophy” I meant “If that impression is right, then there is no DECEIT (which requires intent) in his philosophy.” Sorry.

by a rebuttal of clinical fact-founded logic wrapped in lay-comprehensible terms

I get what youâ€™re saying but thereâ€™s a little catch to your suggestion, I think. Itâ€™s a sweet idea that a clinical rebuttal (on itâ€™s own, anyway) will do the trick. Iâ€™ve been there myself and used to think as much (as I think is natural), but I donâ€™t think it always works as well as weâ€™d like to think.

To my reading this suggestion runs a little counter-purpose to what Mark was saying (and I generally agreed with – see my earlier comment). Mark is, again to my reading, suggesting that a â€œpure logicâ€ approach may have limited effect. (Mark may clarify – ?)

Annoying and wrong-headed as it is, it does seem to often/sometimes (at least!) be the case.

I have experienced this myself in practical terms. Itâ€™s one of the reasons when I try explain, say, homeopathy I keep it simple. Homeopathy is a soft target, mind you. Very soft ;-)

These issues very widely discussed on science communication forums, by the way. (Just clueing you in.)

One problem I suspect with this discussion and the particular issue at hand is the difference â€œprintâ€ (including electronic here) and TV media. In TV, there really isnâ€™t time for a genuine resolution of issues, etc. You couldnâ€™t map an (in-depth) article or blog well to TV, for example. Without meaning to be cynic, in TV presentations, with perhaps the exception of long in-depth documentaries, TV is more about â€˜impressionsâ€™, which plays out well for those who are salespeople at heart.

Scientists are generally poor salespeople; people like Ken generally are good at it – it’s how they get to where they are.

MarkJ,

chuck some serious modern day research at the idea

I should add, the geologists seem to indicate this area is already active and has been for a long time. I touched on this in my earlier reply to you; see also the SMC collection of feedback from geologists.

MainlyMe 1614 days ago

@GJ;
“… clinical rebuttal (on itâ€™s own, anyway) will do the trick.. but I donâ€™t think it always works as well as weâ€™d like to think.” Believe me IT WON’T work. You missed the critical point – “wrapped in lay-comprehensible terms…” (and the admiration expressed for Paul Callaghan’s skill in translating the most complex science – eg relativity – to lay comprehensible language).

The second aspect that you appear to have overlooked is that I accept that not everyone will be won over, and so pitching for a sizeable majority is sufficient (“The truth will out for the intelligent majority”). Just as there will always be people who prove the placebo effect by administering homeopathic remedies, similarly even with irrevocable proof that Ring is indeed wrong you will never convince 100% of the population of that.

The challenge for the science communicator is to form a cohesive argument in everyday language that is more persuasive (in terms that the public operates under per MarkJ’s post) than the alternative proposition, and to present that through a vehicle that has street cred, and that is not your academic scientist, given the public perception of scientist credibility in this field (see later).

Sadly, what I see way too often is scientists talking to lay people in the same manner as they do their peers with excruciatingly detailed arguments citing academics Jo Public has no knowledge of nor interest in. By that approach Jo Publik gets frustrated and falls back on what (s)he already knows -scientists are arrogant, tedious, self-serving and untrustworthy. The scientist then sneers that it is too complex for Jo Publik anyway.

We have to get beyond that to win this battle, and that means simple (maybe simplistic), logical arguments. That is what Ring has provided them – “the moon and planets exert sufficient gravitational force to shift millions of tonnes of water twice a day, so it’s only natural that the same force extends to the land mass and so increases earthquake risk when astronomical bodies are appropriately aligned”. Simple logic, and supported by risk forecasts that Jo Public deems fulfilled, credible within their own standards of lay proof (per MarkJ). If scientists cannot compose a comparable line of simple proof, then Ring’s ideas will prevail until events conflict BADLY with the expectations he creates. If his forecasts are as broad as others here interpret, then that may be a very long time indeed.

Now back to the street cred. Sadly, in the earthquake field there are two things that work against the science argument. First Ring is offering them something they desperately want; means to avoid pain. They see that science has made no progress to giving that relief, indeed scientists offer little hope of that outcome, ever. Little wonder the alternative remedy gets attention. Secondly in the public eye, earthquake scientists have already spent substantial credibility capital, as many of the public think that scientists deceived them when stating that aftershocks would not be as powerful as (and so to lay-logic less destructive than) the initial quake. In otherwords to public perceptions, the scientists’ “forecasts” created expectations that were radically out of touch with the eventuality. (Please don’t walk me through the physics – I already get it. The point here is that the public doesn’t, and that is all that matters.) That bad start was compounded by science experts squabbling over whether this was a new event or an aftershock. The public don’t care – it destroyed their lives irrespective of the filial relationship! Jo Public: “Why don’t you scientists join the real world and focus on what matters”. Meantime Ring’s colateral rides sky high with the public sympathy vote after that bully John Campbell rudely ambushed him on TV.

It’s going to be a tough battle. And that in a nutshell is why engaging on the lay public’s terms, not half way, but totally on THEIR terms, is the requisite to succeeding here.

Michael Edmonds 1614 days ago

@allyoop

Actually what is “hard” for me is reading through your extremely long posts and realising that if you could write more efficiently and in a less post modernist style you could have put your ideas across in a post about 1/5 the size.
With regards to to the content of your post, I do indeed understand what you are talking about. I also understand, as Alison pointed out, it is rather tangential to the general discussion here.
Also you ask if I understand “sustainable communities’, and yes I do. However, as you didn’t actually use this term in your first posting and your comments related to this were quite oblique then perhaps you will understand why I am surprised you are criticising my understanding of it.
With regard to the rebuild of Christchurch, I think this has to be thought through carefully and a more organic and socially orientated design which will enhance people working together seems like a good idea to me.
And yes, I am a scientist. Trained in the chemical and biological sciences, but with interests in sociology and psychology as well.

Michael Edmonds 1614 days ago

@mainlyme

“It is my view that Ken Ring honestly and genuinely believes that he has a key to forecast (word chosen advisedly rather than predict) periods of high risk for earthquakes, and by exposing those to public scrutiny is performing his own form of peer review.”

A very valid point.

However, are people remembering that John Campbell is a journalist (and one under extreme pressure at the time) and not a scientist. The scientist that John interviewed didn’t attack Ken Ring and while a number of scientists have commented on Ken Ring’s opinions their criticisms have been fairly mild and in my opinion reasonably polite.

Michael Edmonds 1614 days ago

â€œWhy donâ€™t you scientists join the real world and focus on what mattersâ€.

Then perhaps the focus should have been on the medical science being used to save crush victims and on the engineering and science that allowed people in the more modern buildings to survive the quake?

petersmith 1614 days ago

Michael Edmonds
Comment on:
â€œWhy donâ€™t you scientists join the real world and focus on what mattersâ€.

‘Then perhaps the focus should have been on the medical science being used to save crush victims and on the engineering and science that allowed people in the more modern buildings to survive the quake?’

Medical science treatment of crush injuries does not affect many people… Most deaths occurred in the ‘more modern’ buildings… even the modern forsyth Barr building had its stairwell collapse… what should be the mist secure part of a building!!

The bottom line is that most people won’t even know Ring exists or that this venting of intellect is taking place… they just want to know ‘when’s the dunny arriving????’

Michael Edmonds 1614 days ago

I don’t think the “small” number of people saved by medical science negates its importance.
The point I was trying to make was that perhaps the media would have been better to concentrate on how science was helping save lives rather than create such a hubbub about Ken Ring.
And I’m not sure how old the Forsyth Barr building is, but I know that my work colleagues were protected by the excellent design of our six story building which was built in the 1990′s. I certainly agree with you that the collapse of stairwells will need to be something that needs to be looked into. And the tools to do that will be science and engineering.
Technology (basically applied science) has played a key role in allowing people to contact each other and in getting large parts of the city up and running again. There are areas still without power and water but these are being worked on. I have friends in these areas and have run essentials out to them as well as to a distribution centre, as well as inviting them around for meals and showers.
And though they may not be aware of this “venting of intellect” many others are, including those who are quite happy to use this disaster to push an “antiscience” agenda. Such attacks need to be countered.

Iâ€™m well aware of the â€˜lay languageâ€™ issue! Itâ€™s only the first thing anyone writing science for the public learns!! ;-)

Please note the wink ;-)

The second aspect that you appear to have overlooked is that I accept that not everyone will be won over

That point wasnâ€™t addressed to you, but to markj as I clarified in a later comment. That you can target the majority was my intention too, I left it implied in my aside to Mark. (I didnâ€™t say otherwise or â€œoverlookâ€ it.)

My point is focused on this portion of what I quoted from you

rebuttal [consisting] of clinical fact-founded logic

I was pointing out that a â€œpure logicâ€ approachâ€”what you suggestedâ€”in my experience doesnâ€™t work as well as weâ€™d like to think. Bear in mind here that the â€˜pureâ€™ is saying â€˜on itâ€™s ownâ€™.

As I said, itâ€™s annoying and wrong-headed as youâ€™d think it would naÃ¯vely, but in my experience from following science communication for a little while (a few years) it doesnâ€™t always pan out like that.

What you are writing is what I might have a few years ago. Itâ€™s familiar ground. Iâ€™ve since come to the conclusion that pure logic in the public arena has itâ€™s problems. Youâ€™d wish it were true, I used too, but the reality as I have come to see it is that you have to *drop* a certain amount of that â€˜pure logicâ€™ to get past the first base. That is, you have to do more that just lay language, but also drop a *lot* of the details and finer correctness. Once youâ€™ve done thatâ€”i.e. youâ€™re now communicating with a party that has some interest in a deeper explanationâ€”then itâ€™s easier to explain it in a â€˜pure logicâ€™ fashion. People in general are reluctant to invest much effort and all that.

Thereâ€™s a nuance to what Iâ€™m saying here. Iâ€™m not saying no logic.

A lot of what is presenting is, from a scientists point of view, well short of accurate but â€œgood enoughâ€ to convey â€œthe gist of the final, overall thinkingâ€. (Notice how this skips over a lot of logic: it short-cuts to the final thing, cutting corners, etc.)

Certainly in the case of TV presentationâ€”whatâ€™s relevant in the upcoming presentationâ€”thereâ€™s a cliche: â€˜style over substanceâ€™.

Ken Ring played that card the other night. His substance was, well, you know, rubbish – but the style was pretty good. Whatever â€˜victoryâ€™ he had was solely on style, really. (I doubt many would oppose that!)

I should add here another point thatâ€™s not in this discussion that Iâ€™ve seen elsewhere. Russell Brown pointed out a lot of people (elsewhere) are writing as if Ken Ring were a novice to media when, according to Brown, heâ€™s not. Ring apparently has a regular radio slot. I wouldnâ€™t know as I donâ€™t listen to radio – perhaps others could verify this. (Peter Griffin?)

He is, of course, has a salesman sideâ€”thatâ€™s how people in his business get to where they are.

With these thoughts in mind, I suspect short-format TV will struggle counter him properly, especially if it takes only a â€˜pure logicâ€™ approach. In short-form theyâ€™re going to be limited to a couple of individual points, rather than a series of logical steps, which a good PR person (read: Ring) will likely bluff around as there wonâ€™t be enough time to counter or box in. (In same ways he did this the other night, too.)

Perhaps an at-length documentary might be able to expose the logical issues (they have more time), or perhaps if you have someone who is able to play the style game well with just enough â€˜science liteâ€™ to be credible that might work too – but there are few people who do this well on a TV audience level in my personal opinion.

Thereâ€™s a bit of nuance thatâ€™s hard to convey here: Iâ€™m not saying logic is wrong or should be dispensed with. Iâ€™m saying itâ€™s unlikely to be what will carry the day in the end, in my opinion.

You wrote: than the alternative proposition

Being?

The scientist then sneers that it is too complex for Jo Publik anyway.

A more correct account hereâ€”I thinkâ€”would be that the scientist says that it is too complex, meaning well, but some viewers/readers take the remark as off-hand and condescending.

Part of examining science communication of controversial subjects, I think, requires a critical awareness of the difference between someone actually doing something, and someone being perceived as doing it by the other party.

Perception matters :-)

Youâ€™ll notice I pointed out similar issues with a few things markj wrote.

(For one thing, it can create false notions of â€œus v. themâ€, or even â€œcombatâ€, thatâ€™s often not really there.)

Please donâ€™t walk me through the physics â€“ I already get it. The point here is that the public doesnâ€™t, and that is all that matters.

My point was even if you did â€˜walk the public through the physicsâ€™ in lay terms, in my opinion it wont be the what carries the day in the end. In my experience a surprising number of things are not â€˜soldâ€™ on a truly sound logic argumentâ€”on itâ€™s own at leastâ€”but on something that on close inspection is actually quite weak but is presented well.

Iâ€™m not trying to split hairs either :-) Itâ€™s just if you still around science communication discussions you realise thereâ€™s this odd catch that often is really workingâ€”hugely ironicallyâ€”is actually a variation the same â€˜soft presentationâ€™ stuff people object to!

(While Iâ€™m writing, the issue isnâ€™t physics but statistics, for the most part: the nub of the thing is correlations or not, rather than physical models – the â€˜physical model thingâ€™ is Ringâ€˜s smokescreen, as it were.)

MainlyMe 1614 days ago

To expand on an earlier post, where I said “…that I accept that not everyone will be won over, and so pitching for a sizeable majority is sufficient.” I think that, like any battle for the public mind, the outcome of the Ring-earthquake-prediction-theory debate will be determined by the common view of the common person, the silent majority, and not by extremists at either end of the bell-curve.

I suspect at this time that a poll of the (wo)man in the streets of Christchurch asking “do you think that there is any validity to Mr Ring’s earthquake predictions” would reveal a majority “Undecided” vote. That is a more fruitful ground for scientific arguments than wooing the already committed. But the genie is out of the bottle, so scientists will only accomplish their wanted outcome by sensible engagement and not by attempting to close down debate or manipulating the media.

I hope that the Science Media Centre accept that now, and so will apply its resources to the best presentation and strongest representation of the scientific viewpoint in a manner that the lay person can buy into.

MainlyMe, Excuse me if I’m writing cross-purposes, Iâ€™m aware youâ€™re saying logic on itâ€™s own wonâ€™t work (I agree), but then you go off to write in opposition to me revealingâ€”to meâ€”youâ€™ve â€œoverlookedâ€ (Iâ€™m being cheeky) the nuance of what I wrote! :-(

Hence my laying it out more. Sorry if it overlaps with much of what youâ€™ve said (but note the subtle difference, it matters in working out what to present).

Medical science treatment of crush injuries does not affect many people

I could have sworn I read that a medic said most of the injuries they got were crush injuries. But, whatever :-/

petersmith 1614 days ago

Grant, your wanks are wearing thin ;-)

Science has very few answers… and statistics/probabilities none… who, even momentarily, predicted/forecast/factored in a second earthquake in Canterbury… We’d been told the chances of an earthquake on a previously unknown fault line were rare… now we have a second one in close proximity to the first… what would have happened if the tremor had been 10k off shore and caused a tsunami as well???? Given that ChCh is barely 14 m above sea level the mind boggles at the carnage.

Yesterday Key was saying the fact the IRD building is still standing is proof of the soundness of modern building code… what drivel… Such an observation is anecdotal and no more sound than someone being cured of cancer following a dose of homeopathic medicine… Key says foundations need to go down to solid ground. Where is the solid ground under ChCH???? The foundations needed are deep “floating” foundations… tectile… not rigid.

petersmith 1614 days ago

Grant said… “Medical science treatment of crush injuries does not affect many people

I could have sworn I read that a medic said most of the injuries they got were crush injuries.”

Grant… are you a scientist or simply a person who accepts what they read… if the former, then you shouldn’t claim this to be scientific evidence… if the latter, is that any different to someone reading about Ring’s theories/forecasts?

There are 360k people in ChCh… the number injured with crush injuries is tiny in comparison… everyone is affected in one way or another by the earthquakes.

Petersmith, Not deserving of a reply, esp. as I have already explained the key point you raised.

petersmith 1614 days ago

Grant… so when confronted with evidence you respond by saying “it’s not worthy of a reply…!!”"”

Of all the responses on this blogs, yours beggar belief… your replies do little to enhance the cause of science…

Alison Campbell 1614 days ago

MainlyMe: The challenge for the science communicator is to form a cohesive argument in everyday language that is more persuasive (in terms that the public operates under per MarkJâ€™s post) than the alternative proposition, and to present that through a vehicle that has street cred, and that is not your academic scientist, given the public perception of scientist credibility in this field (see later).

Sadly, what I see way too often is scientists talking to lay people in the same manner as they do their peers with excruciatingly detailed arguments citing academics Jo Public has no knowledge of nor interest in. By that approach Jo Publik gets frustrated and falls back on what (s)he already knows -scientists are arrogant, tedious, self-serving and untrustworthy. The scientist then sneers that it is too complex for Jo Publik anyway.

And, also sadly, I have to agree that this is often the case. Which is one of the reasons that I & the other bloggers here are so committed to doing our best to help to bridge that gap. We may not be successful, but we do our best (we’re not all Paul Callaghans!).

The problem remains the vehicle, doesn’t it? Most people get their ‘science’ from the mass media & in my own experience the mass media aren’t often interested in the hows & whys. We hear about the ‘breakthroughs’ (think of the recent to-do over fructose intake in pregnancy, or perhaps – going back a few years now – lyprinol) but not about the qualifiers, and then when things don’t meet the initial hoop-la then, well, those stupid scientists, why can’t they get it ‘right’ & just stop changing their minds? The other thing is the media tendency to look for balance when there might not be any – to present (say) homeopathy as the equal to medical treatment for a particular condition. This does provide an aura of credibility that in some instances isn’t really justified, but it all contributes to the general perception of science & scientists as a bit irrelevant/divorced from the real world. (Which is a pity given the importance of science & its technological spin-offs to the way of life that most – all? – of us commenting here enjoy.)

Michael Edmonds 1614 days ago

@petersmith

“Medical science treatment of crush injuries does not affect many peopleâ€¦ Most deaths occurred in the â€˜more modernâ€™ buildingsâ€¦ even the modern forsyth Barr building had its stairwell collapse”

I’m sure the families and friends of those rescued would disagree. Do YOU know for a fact how many people suffered crush injuries?

“There are 360k people in ChChâ€¦ the number injured with crush injuries is tiny in comparison”

Given your line of reasoning, then the number of people killed in the Forsyth Barr building is so small compared to 360k in Chch, then it is irrelevant that the building collapsed.

However, unlike you, I believe that saving even one human life is important and commendable.
And some people believe that scientists are clinical. Your dismissal of the value of the lives of a small number of people sickens me.

MainlyMe 1613 days ago

GJ;
I regret that I do not have time today for a detailed response to your assessment of the situation analysis I posted late last night. I would however like to expand on just one aspect, as I think it is core to the challenge ahead. That matter is the public’s assessment of (what they regard as) the earthquake science community’s prediction for them post Sept.

They were told by scientists
* there would be a gradual fall-off in frequency and intensity of aftershocks, within a range of up to one magnitude less than the original shake. (I know that has played out)
BUT … they heard:
* the “big one” is behind us, so we can get on with the rebuild

We know what happened a week ago and so far as Jo Publik is concerned the science world betrayed them.

Juxtapose that with Ken Ring who is perceived to have said “there is more coming, including a bigger one”. Given the facts that followed we should not be surprised that Ken Ring’s street cred stakes have risen at the expense of the science community. We move forward with negative equity with the audience we need to win here.

I need to cut out now to do real work so I can eat to argue another day!

[...] population. Every mention of Ring, every Marcus Lush saying â€œyou got that one mateâ€, even the well-meaning attempt by TV 3â€™s John Campbell to reveal Ringâ€™s mendacity has served to build the moon manâ€™s [...]

Blogroll

About SciBlogs

Sciblogs is the biggest blog network of scientists in New Zealand, an online forum for discussion of everything from clinical health to climate change. Our Scibloggers are either practising scientists or have been writing on science-related issues for some time. They welcome your feedback!